USA/NFCA Softball Poll is Out

[tank]

We are the Boise State of football.Look at the polls.SEC,PAC 10,BIG 12.The polls have nothing to do with RPI.NO RESPECT. We were #23 last year in the RPI and we were a #3 seed ! PLEASE EXPLAIN again.According to last year's RPI we should have been a #2 seed in the #9 ranked region.After we win that Region,Super Regional vs #8 Region to get to the DANCE.

[GoneGolfin]

_ How long in advance of this season could someone identify Jackson State as a must scedule team?

Is this true every year?

As discussed in prior threads (many in the past month and some last year), there is a slew of criteria you can apply that helps maximize the chances of scheduling RPI-friendly teams and avoiding the RPI-unfriendly teams. It is not nearly as random as you might think. As an example, this post addresses the principals of scheduling smart in the context of baseball. But this also applies to softball.

Brian

[GoneGolfin]

_ We are the Boise State of football.Look at the polls.SEC,PAC 10,BIG 12.The polls have nothing to do with RPI.NO RESPECT. We were #23 last year in the RPI and we were a #3 seed ! PLEASE EXPLAIN again.According to last year's RPI we should have been a #2 seed in the #9 ranked region.After we win that Region,Super Regional vs #8 Region to get to the DANCE. _

As I explained here, this is not how the selection committee seeds teams. The selection process in softball is somewhat different than baseball in this regard. In baseball, the Cajuns very likely would have been a #2 seed with an RPI ranking of 23 and a conference title. But this is not necessarily the case in softball.

In fact, the NCAA Softball selection committee has attempted to demphasize the label of "seeds" by not seeding any teams other than the #1 seeds. They do not officially declare a #2 or #3 seed, but it does not make much effort to determine the teams that fill these spots. Meanwhile, baseball explicitly designates seeds 1->4 for each regional.

Brian

[CajunT]

_ As I explained here, this is not how the selection committee seeds teams. The selection process in softball is somewhat different than baseball in this regard. In baseball, the Cajuns very likely would have been a #2 seed with an RPI ranking of 23 and a conference title. But this is not necessarily the case in softball.

In fact, the NCAA Softball selection committee has attempted to demphasize the label of "seeds" by not seeding any teams other than the #1 seeds. They do not officially declare a #2 or #3 seed, but it does not make much effort to determine the teams that fill these spots. Meanwhile, baseball explicitly designates seeds 1->4 for each regional.

Brian _

Brian, the fact that the NCAA committee doesn't officially seed any teams other then no. #1 seeds is nothing more then a facade. One simply can look at the matchups and understand UL is #3 team seeded in the Austin Region and was the same last season in Baton Rouge. The criteria being being used amounts to nothing more then seeding teams 1through 4, they are simply not owning up to it.

On face, we all understand the NCAA softball committee has no seeds after the ones, but simply supports criteria that ends with the same results. Just because there is no official statement or rule for seeding, it has and continues end in similar results.

There is no argument on what is the process, but there is much disagreement as to the end results. In my book, there is a clear case to be made over the years that they do in fact place teams in regionals in a certain order without the use of the term seed. The evidence is overwhelming.

[CajunT]

_ #1 If the Cajuns do not establish themselves with a #1 seed caliber RPI (which they have not done in recent years), they will not be a #1 seed. I think it is quite unlikely that the Cajuns will host without being a #1 seed in the present day. The right geographical situation would need to present itself for the Cajuns to host as a #2 seed.

#2 When the Cajuns are not a #1 seed, because of the competition in their region, they very much run the risk of being a #3 seed with an RPI in the top 32. Geography then comes into play and two very similar high RPI teams can be slotted as the #2/#3 seeds in a regional. When this happens, there is sometimes not much separation between the #1/#2/#3 in order to provide more balance to the regional. This happened in 2010 (Baton Rouge) and in 2009 (Baylor). 2011 ... well, the Cajuns have the RPI of a #3 seed.

#3 This does not happen to just UL.

Hence, after the #1 seeds have been identified, it is more about geography in softball. More than in baseball.


You have absolutely no evidence on which to base the above assumption.

It is not going to change if we do not schedule smarter. I vote we attempt to schedule smarter, obtain a Top 16 RPI heading into the selection process, and see where we land.

There is a problem, it has been identified, now it must be fixed ... we can leave the excuses about why even fixing the problem might not yield the desired results, to someone else. If the Cajuns fix the problem and nothing changes, then the Cajuns will have something real to complain about. But I think that if the Cajuns have a #1 seed caliber RPI, they will be rewarded with a #1 seed provided the other important criteria fall into place (conference championship, sufficient record vs. RPI Top 25/50, etc.)

Brian _

See my post below, the evidence is overwhelming in my book and the fact that other programs fall under the same scrutiny is irrevlevant because most of those programs are not from power conferences only furthering my argument. Results matter, process and criterion are only part of it.

[RaginFan2]

_ As I explained here, this is not how the selection committee seeds teams. The selection process in softball is somewhat different than baseball in this regard. In baseball, the Cajuns very likely would have been a #2 seed with an RPI ranking of 23 and a conference title. But this is not necessarily the case in softball.

In fact, the NCAA Softball selection committee has attempted to demphasize the label of "seeds" by not seeding any teams other than the #1 seeds. They do not officially declare a #2 or #3 seed, but it does not make much effort to determine the teams that fill these spots. Meanwhile, baseball explicitly designates seeds 1->4 for each regional.

Brian _

In all honesty, does it really matter if we are considered a #2 or #3 seed? The net result is the same. We end up playing the same team.

[GoneGolfin]

_ Brian, the fact that the NCAA committee doesn't officially seed any teams other then no. #1 seeds is nothing more then a facade. One simply can look at the matchups and understand UL is #3 team seeded in the Austin Region and was the same last season in Baton Rouge. The criteria being being used amounts to nothing more then seeding teams 1through 4, they are simply not owning up to it.

I agree and said nothing to the contrary. I said they are "deemphaszing the label of seeds" by only declaring the #1 seeds. This drives the point home that the #1 seeds are earned on merit, while the remainder of the seeds are determined by a balance of merit and geography. As I stated, if you have a region of strong teams, because of the process that is used, you will have teams that are under-seeded on a national scale. For regions of weak teams, you will have teams that are over-seeded on a national scale.

If the Cajuns had the RPI and resume where they were a stronger #2 seed than Houston, they would have been the #2 seed ... though it does not matter much in this case. I exclude LSU from the discussion because they were going to get slotted to College Station (not Austin) due to geography.

But much more important than the #2/#3 seed designation is getting the schedule right such that the Cajuns can compete for a #1 seed and a potential host regional (if geography permits). I demonstrated how the Cajuns would have been in the running for a #1 seed with a smarter schedule. This should be incorporated into the scheduling process until the RPI is changed or is no more.

Brian

[GoneGolfin]

_ In all honesty, does it really matter if we are considered a #2 or #3 seed? The net result is the same. We end up playing the same team. _

In baseball, it certainly does matter ... because your assumption in bold is not true.

In softball, it may not matter ... it depends on the regional sites for which you (and the other potential #2/#3 seeds) would be geographically qualified to participate. If there was only one such regional (and two possible teams for these slots), then it does not matter. If there was more than one regional and/or more than two possible teams, it may matter.

I think this year, it does not matter. Given the selected regional sites, it was either Austin (vs. Houston) or College Station (vs. LSU). Syracuse could have been slotted in either College Station or Austin ... but College Station was chosen to better balance that bracket (Syracuse has an RPI ranking of 26 ... LSU 25 ... while A&M is a bubble #1 seed). A strong #2 seed resume (stronger than Houston or LSU) would still have resulted in the Cajuns playing one of those teams. But again, #2/#3 would not have mattered.

Brian

[GoneGolfin]

_ See my post below, the evidence is overwhelming in my book and the fact that other programs fall under the same scrutiny is irrevlevant because most of those programs are not from power conferences only furthering my argument. Results matter, process and criterion are only part of it. _

I have no idea what point you are attempting to make here. The bottom line is that if the Cajuns had the resume of a #1 seed, they would be a #1 seed. I demonstrated how a better schedule would have landed them in the discussion for a #1 seed. We need to schedule smarter. Period.

Brian

[CajunT]

_ I agree and said nothing to the contrary. I said they are "deemphaszing the label of seeds" by only declaring the #1 seeds. This drives the point home that the #1 seeds are earned on merit, while the remainder of the seeds are determined by a balance of merit and geography. As I stated, if you have a region of strong teams, because of the process that is used, you will have teams that are under-seeded on a national scale. For regions of weak teams, you will have teams that are over-seeded on a national scale.

If the Cajuns had the RPI and resume where they were a stronger #2 seed than Houston, they would have been the #2 seed ... though it does not matter much in this case. I exclude LSU from the discussion because they were going to get slotted to College Station (not Austin) due to geography.

But much more important than the #2/#3 seed designation is getting the schedule right such that the Cajuns can compete for a #1 seed. I demonstrated how the Cajuns would have been in the running for a #1 seed with a smarter schedule. This should be incorporated into the scheduling process until the RPI is changed or is no more.

Brian _

We agree that scheduling and winning is the only cure, but there have been awful large number of high RPI programs in the mid-west region on the past years. LOL!!